4.2.2 Possible Reasons for Non Sustainability
Is it possible to go blindly towards danger without taking any corrective action? If
such an action might be excusable for an individual, is this possible that a whole
society attempts a similar path (such as cutting down the last tree or intentionally
wreaking ecological damage)?
Tainter (1990) lists down 11 themes for explaining collapses:
1. Depletion or cessation of a vital resource on which the society depends
2. The establishment of a new resource base
3. The occurrence of some insurmountable catastrophe
4. Insufficient response to circumstances
5. Other complex societies
6. Intruders
7. Class conflict, societal contradictions, elite mismanagement, or misbehavior
8. Social dysfunction
9. Mystical factors
10. Chance concatenation of events
11. Economic factors
He argues that complex societies are well equipped, administratively and technically, to allocate labour and resources to deal with problems, even to fight against
adverse environmental conditions. Doing nothing, when facing impending disaster,
does not seem a conceivable option.
However, Diamond (2011) confirms that many civilisations did, precisely, and
independently, the same mistake: failing to manage their environmental resources,
which eventually led to the collapse of societies such as Easter Island, the Mayas,
etc. He gives four possible reasons:
(1) Failure to anticipate a problem before it actually arrives,
(2) Even when the problem occurs, the group fails to perceive it,
(3) Even after perception, the group does not even try solving it, and
(4) No guarantee of success even if there a solution attempt,
which are elaborated in Table 4.5.
In modern democracies, where politicians are elected on a “first past the post”
principle, it is not that difficult to get elected. If there are only two parties, obtaining
50% of the votes plus a minor fraction is sufficient for the winning party. If there are
three parties, obtaining 33% of the votes plus a minor fraction is sufficient for a party
to win and implement campaign promises (for which the other 66% might be
against) and which the 33% (who voted for) might have misunderstood. Without
even mentioning the possibility that votes might have been bought, if the above can
occur even in today’s modern world, one can easily imagine what could happen if
there were ten candidates (or parties) standing for election or in countries where
dictators were in power. Yes, if in today’s developed world, a whole society or
civilisation can willingly or blindly walk in the wrong direction, by voting,
110
4 Infrastructure Vision for Sustainable Development
Is it possible to go blindly towards danger without taking any corrective action? If
such an action might be excusable for an individual, is this possible that a whole
society attempts a similar path (such as cutting down the last tree or intentionally
wreaking ecological damage)?
Tainter (1990) lists down 11 themes for explaining collapses:
1. Depletion or cessation of a vital resource on which the society depends
2. The establishment of a new resource base
3. The occurrence of some insurmountable catastrophe
4. Insufficient response to circumstances
5. Other complex societies
6. Intruders
7. Class conflict, societal contradictions, elite mismanagement, or misbehavior
8. Social dysfunction
9. Mystical factors
10. Chance concatenation of events
11. Economic factors
He argues that complex societies are well equipped, administratively and technically, to allocate labour and resources to deal with problems, even to fight against
adverse environmental conditions. Doing nothing, when facing impending disaster,
does not seem a conceivable option.
However, Diamond (2011) confirms that many civilisations did, precisely, and
independently, the same mistake: failing to manage their environmental resources,
which eventually led to the collapse of societies such as Easter Island, the Mayas,
etc. He gives four possible reasons:
(1) Failure to anticipate a problem before it actually arrives,
(2) Even when the problem occurs, the group fails to perceive it,
(3) Even after perception, the group does not even try solving it, and
(4) No guarantee of success even if there a solution attempt,
which are elaborated in Table 4.5.
In modern democracies, where politicians are elected on a “first past the post”
principle, it is not that difficult to get elected. If there are only two parties, obtaining
50% of the votes plus a minor fraction is sufficient for the winning party. If there are
three parties, obtaining 33% of the votes plus a minor fraction is sufficient for a party
to win and implement campaign promises (for which the other 66% might be
against) and which the 33% (who voted for) might have misunderstood. Without
even mentioning the possibility that votes might have been bought, if the above can
occur even in today’s modern world, one can easily imagine what could happen if
there were ten candidates (or parties) standing for election or in countries where
dictators were in power. Yes, if in today’s developed world, a whole society or
civilisation can willingly or blindly walk in the wrong direction, by voting,
110
4 Infrastructure Vision for Sustainable Development